That means that the President was fine with the lack of rules/standards/procedures to confine his own power.

Mr. Obama and his advisers are still debating whether remote-control killing should be a measure of last resort against imminent threats to the United States, or a more flexible tool, available to help allied governments attack their enemies or to prevent militants from controlling territory.

Why are they still working on it? I imagine that every attempt to put the rules in writing and to cover everything they've already done (and want to keep doing) ends up with something they can't justify explicitly saying.

In an interview with Mark Bowden for a new book on the killing of Osama bin Laden, “The Finish,” Mr. Obama said that “creating a legal structure, processes, with oversight checks on how we use unmanned weapons, is going to be a challenge for me and my successors for some time to come.”

The president expressed wariness of the powerful temptation drones pose to policy makers. “There’s a remoteness to it that makes it tempting to think that somehow we can, without any mess on our hands, solve vexing security problems,” he said.

Tempting no-mess remoteness. That sounds like a much bigger theme... like the overarching theme of the Obama administration.

156 comments:

"The president expressed wariness of the powerful temptation drones pose to policy makers. 'There’s a remoteness to it that makes it tempting to think that somehow we can, without any mess on our hands, solve vexing security problems,' he said."

And yet, he, the mass murderer-in chief, continues to use and expand this program.

It is typical that each government mass murderer sees his own character and judgement--and actions--as exemplary in probity and propriety, while deeming it necessary that "protections" must be put in place to insure that those who come after don't "abuse" the deadly powers and programs already in use.

To paraphrase an old cliche, it's too late to close the jail door after the killer is at large and active.

Mr. Obama himself, in little-noticed remarks, has acknowledged that the legal governance of drone strikes is still a work in progress.

“One of the things we’ve got to do is put a legal architecture in place, and we need Congressional help in order to do that, to make sure that not only am I reined in but any president’s reined in terms of some of the decisions that we’re making,” Mr. Obama told Jon Stewart in an appearance on “The Daily Show” on Oct. 18.

The NYT has opinions on so many topics. Why the remoteness on this one?

I like that word, remote. It conjures a deliberate yet passive activity like controlling images on a screen. Much like drone warfare.

It's Ender's Game in real life.

Obama's Game.

Best for the NYT not to give too much scrutiny to a fellow leftist who is exploring the contours of acceptable targeted killing. They know his heart is in the right place when he kills, so it's OK that the rules are non-existent or undefined.

Why would Romney even have had to obey these rules? They were put in place by the Obama admin, not Congress. It's purely an executive branch set of rules that presumably can be overturned or changed by any succeeding President.

What a stinking mass of turned-over bullshit. The Obama administration was engaged in a massive, panicked CYA action. They were petrified that a Romney Attorney General would prosecute them for their illegal assassinations. After all, that's what they would do.

True enough as far as it goes, but once rules/regs are explicitly defined on hard-copy paper all it takes is unremitting PR pressure from an unfriendly media inveighing against said "rules" as unconstitutional/morally reprehensible combined with legal challenges via mostly leftist Fed judges to really gum up the works. Conversely, it is exceedingly difficult to mount a legal challenge against a non-existent rule or reg..

"The Obama administration was engaged in a massive, panicked CYA action. They were petrified that a Romney Attorney General would prosecute them for their illegal assassinations. After all, that's what they would do."

Not at all. If this were the case, Obama would have followed the law and mounted prosecutions against Bush, Cheney, et al., for torture.

This has to do strictly with Obama's overweening self-regard, his picture of himself as judicious and "moral" in his deployment of these mass-murder robots. By erecting a tissue of Potemkin protections against the "abuse" of the murder-bots--as if their use can be anything other than abuse of power--Obama further flatters himself at his own greatness of character in committing long-distance mass murder.

It appears they are still trying to create the "explicit rules" they must have been following the night they watched our ambassador and 3 other good men get murdered on the ground by the Islamist attack in Benghazi.

Where are the tapes? The photos? The procedures? The communications?

Four Americans got killed by a gutless administration which left them with minimal security, provided no defense, and abandoned them with no rescue, while being able to tell some guys and gals in Iowa to take out a mud hut or a vehicle with a twitch of a finger with little or no guidelines.

Well, we see at least one person here who clings to the fantasy that the Nazis were leftists.

Uncle Joe Stalin stated that Nazism was just different sort of socialism, to help explain his non-aggression treaty with them to the American Communist Party (and others). See the Venona Papers for more information.

"It's purely an executive branch set of rules that presumably can be overturned or changed by any succeeding President."

But when Romney changed or disregarded these rules, the Democrats could pretend to be scandalized and outraged at his flagrant neophyte warmongering disregard for the thoughtful and painstakingly detailed policies put in place by his battle-tested predecessor.

Trotsky and Stalin had a famous falling out and the Trotsky ended up with an ice pick in his skull. Does the fact that they were enemies that somehow Trotskyites weren't still peopleOf the left? Fascism was also of the left. It was an outgrowth of communism. All of those totslitarian regimes are lefty movements, not right wing movements. Lets also add the communists in china aand Vietnam and pol pot and the Khmer Rouge. ALL on the left. Every one!

"the nazis were absolutely leftists. They were also socialists. National socialists."

Hahahahahaha!

Yes, and Obama is a socialist, too.

Hahahahahaha!

It's very convenient--if childishly self-serving...and unconvincing--how the right has carefully attempted a redefinition of terms and revision of history to insure an interpretation of the world such that all that is bad in the world derives from the left and from leftist policies, and such that, by definition, the right can never be thuggish, violent, or tyrannical, or their policies be wrong-headed or lead to bad results.

Obviously, the left is of Satan and all things bad in the world are thus of the left; and the right is annointed by God, and thus all that is good in the world is of the right...or at least, no bad in the world can be of the right.

Presumably we send a weapon into someone else's territory for the purpose of killing only where there is a grave security threat. That threat may be precise and immediate, or it may be part of a broadly dispersed threat. Either way (since our law bans assassination of foreign leaders), there has to be a security threat with intention to do violence against Americans.

So who should make that determination? Only the President, it seems to me, in consultation with whomever he pleases. There must be no delegation of the decision. The President must document his decision and communicate it clearly to the forces carrying out the attack.

That's it. Call it a kill list if you will, because it is. But I do not see how a set of lawyers' and bureaucrats' "rules" will improve the process, or enhance legality or morality. Either the President exercises this remarkable power with restraint and judgment, or he does not. This will be true no matter how many pages of "rules" are drafted.

I want the President to have this power to protect us. I want his decisions documented and eventually publicized so that he or she may stand before the judgment of history.

What are the "rules" governing use of nuclear weapons? There are none, other than the President's judgment. There are procedures for confirming the decision, so that there is no mistake, and so that the decision is clearly the President's.

Having granted this power, what's the point of a bunch of rules for a hellfire missile?

But Robert Cook couldn't be more wrong about the Nazis. OF COURSE they were socialists--the main difference between them and the Communists is that the Communists believed in exporting the world-wide revolution while the Nazis believed in "Socialism in one country," hence the name "National Socialists."

Hitler is recorded in a newspaper interview in 1938 when asked about the difference between his movement and the Communists as answering: "Oh, they will eventually end up where we already are." And they did!

The main reason that the nazis are viewed, by the left as a righty movement is because they were racist, and as we all know republicans are racist. That's pretty much it. It's not a historical perspective only one based on the lefts own bigotry.But if you want to get down o it robert, that whole notion of the nazis being supermen who had the right toDominate the Inferior people were largely an outgrowth of Darwinism and eugenics, both of which were embraced , along with the racial underpinnings, by people on the left. People revered by the left like Margaret Sanger are steeped in that shit.In fact, you'd have to look to someone like Chesterton for opposition to eugenics, and of course he was conservative. You should look up the story of its Benga to get a perfect example of the casual racism of the progressives of the day. Which is mirrored in nazi policy towards the lesser races. Nazis thought the whole concept of lesser races was scientific, and they were crying edge and modern in adopting those views. They had a genocidal streak to along with their sense of siperiorirty, so instead of putting Jews in museums they instead put them in ovens. But based on the same premise.Nazism socialism communism fascism eugenics all from the left. Progressives have a lot to answer for. And I note you guys pass the buck even now. Those nazis why they're a right wing movement even though they have the word socialist in their name.

This is that last I will say on this subject, to you, since it is obvious that you are not interested in truths, especially uncomfortable (to you ideology) ones.

Fascism = The State

As in "all powerful".

Could ANYTHING be further from the ideology of conservatives? Anything?? Answer: No. Of course not. Never was, never will be. Just the opposite, in fact.

But a more and more powerful and intrusive State is right up the alley of Progressives, and it leads from there to compelled Socialism, and from there to Fascism. Nothing could be clearer from an un-biased reading of history.

Here's HG Welles, great modern progressive of his day:"If we could prevent or discourage the inferior sort of people from having children, and encourage the superior sort to increase and multiply, we should raise the general standard of the race."Sounds an awful lot like the nazis view of the superman and the Jews as the inferior race. HG Welles would probably be ok with sterilizing the inferior races though probably Blanche at outright extermination. The nazis though were in essence simply following this train of thought to its natural conclusion.It was a progressive movement not a right wing movement. Planned parenthood was set up to help the u fit races NOT reproduce. If course tr left of today accepts this argument they MADE the argument when they were called PROGRESSIVES.

Tyrone has it right at 11:40. I would add that there was a fear of international legal repercussions for Obama.

As does Althouse with this: "I imagine that every attempt to put the rules in writing and to cover everything they've already done (and want to keep doing) ends up with something they can't justify explicitly saying."

Nonetheless, if you bother to read the entire article Obama does get a mild post-election tweaking from the Times over his kill list policy. How interesting it would be to hear the discussion that went into their choice of a photo to illustrate the story. "Displaced" Pakistanis, a few visible bandages, but no dead children. That reality would have been too harsh for their sensitive readers. And too harmful to their chosen one.

Apparently, those who quote Hitler or point to the Nazi party's full name to support their fantasy that Nazism was a form of socialism never heard of con men telling lies to dupe others into falling for their cons.

The "anti-Christs" Jesus warned against were not going to be obvious monsters, but men who would appear to be Christ-like, who would present to the credulous and unsuspecting convincing facsimiles of exactly that which there were not.

"The law reduces air pollution controls, including those environmental protections of the Clean Air Act, including caps on toxins in the air and budget cuts for enforcement. The Act is opposed by conservationist groups such as the Sierra Club with Henry A. Waxman, a Democratic congressman of California, describing its title as 'clear propaganda.'

"Among other things, the Clear Skies Act:

"Allows 42 million more tons of pollution emitted than the EPA proposal.

"Weakens the current cap on nitrogen oxide pollution levels from 1.25 million tons to 2.1 million tons, allowing 68% more NOx pollution.

"By 2018, the Clear Skies Act will supposedly allow 3 million tons more NOx through 2012 and 8 million more by 2020, for SO2, 18 million tons more through 2012 and 34 million tons more through 2020. 58 tons more mercury through 2012 and 163 tons more through 2020 would be released into the environment than what would be allowed by enforcement of the Clean Air Act.[2]

"In August 2001, the EPA proposed a version of the Clear Skies Act that contained short timetables and lower emissions caps [3]. It is unknown why this proposal was withdrawn and replaced with the Bush Administration proposal. It is also unclear whether or not the original EPA proposal would have made it out of committee.

"In addition, some opponents consider the term, 'Clear Skies Initiative' (similarly to the Healthy Forests Initiative), to be an example of administration Orwellian Doublespeak, using environmentally friendly terminology as 'cover' for a give-away to business interests.[1]"

Using the words of someone who has proved to be of bad character to support one's own preferred characterization of him or his motives (or one's own agenda) does not suffice as proof of anthing other than that the words were said, the claims made.

(Ted Bundy blamed his rape/murder spree on the torture porn he claimed to have been addicted to. Assuming he actually ever even looked at porn of any kind, much less torture porn, it's far more reasonable to assume he looked for porn that supported and titillated the proclivities he already had. Rather, he simply wanted, even at the end, to wriggle free from full culpability for his acts.)

Matthew Sablan and ThomasD and SomeoneHasToSayIt are three who seem to have very confused ideas as to what "left" and "right" might allow. I must assume they have been taken in by the redefinition of terms undertaken by the right that I mentioned earlier.

Here's a great quote fromChesterton that is till applicable today and kind ofDescribed modern leftism to a tee and describes the same fight Chesterton was having is the same one we are having today:

"It may be said of socialism therefore, that its friends recommended it as increasing equality, while its foes resisted it as decreasing liberty... The compromise made was one of the most interesting and even curious cases in history.It was decided to do everything that had ever been denounced in socialism and nothing that had been desired in it... We proceeded to prove that it was possible to sacrifice liberty without gaining equality... In short, people decided that it wax impossible yo achieve any of the good of socialism, but they comforted themselves by achieving all of the bad."

Obamneycare purports to provide health care to all those who presently cannot afford or otherwise obtain it, when, in fact, it delivers a captive audience of new customers to private insurers. In order for the insurers to get their clutches on this new cohort of insurance-premium payers, they agreed to mild concessions that will, in fact, make some small degree of otherwise unavailable healthcare available to some people.

However, it is far more a gift to the health insurers than it is a boon to the presently uninsured, and still requires they pay premiums that they may barely (or not at all) be able to afford.

Another out-of-sight and out-of-mind policy. The same as our environmental, labor, social, etc. policies, which also seek to shift responsibility and dissociate stakeholders from experiencing risk.

It's not a mystery that manipulating perception serves to realize a preferred outcome. The press has exploited this phenomenon to great acclaim. As have politicians and other public workers. I'm just surprised that they have finally been caught in their own web.

The definition that purports Naziism--or Mussolini's Italian fascists--to have been a form of socialism derives from the self-serving book by Jonah Goldberg, the purpose of which is to further the right's "my side good, your side bad" Manichean convictions. (Not that the left can't be or hasn't been or isn't prone to the same binary prejudices.)

And I suppose Robert Cooke would declare Hitler as a Christian too considering you can find a word or twoOf phrase about Christianity at one point in his life.the nazis called themselves the children of the new age of world told order and critics of nazis were referred to as conservative reactionaries,

The Republicans in Congress have shown no willingness to address these issues. Like the undeclared war in Libya, the Republicans by their silence have given tacit approval.

The N.Y. Times has done some good work on exposing Obama's assassination policies and activities, just as they exposed some of W.'s anti-terror policies. But back then there was a group of people protesting and demanding answers to questions. They were called Democrats.

You have to give Republicans credit for their consistency. They supported W.'s anti-terror policies and wars and they are supporting Obama's anti-terror policies and wars.

At the third debate, Mitt Romney said he approved of Obama's use of drones. Libertarians, and some on the left, have been the only vocal opponents of Obama's targeted drone assassinations. But they don't get much attention.

Nazism, as socialism, as communism, as collectivism, as all philosophies which denigrate individual dignity are totalitarian in nature. They seek to artificially advance the political, economic, and social standing of some actors at the expense of others, principally through monopolies or monopolistic practices. The worst offenders are individuals and cooperatives which claim an authority to commit involuntary exploitation and restrict the liberty of others, typically posing as a legitimate government. Their ambitions are met through the marginalization and evisceration of competing interests. This is why generational liberalism, progressivism, or any other reactive (i.e. unprincipled) movement is so dangerous to the welfare of people. They are a cause of progressive (i.e. cultural) corruption, which empowers ambitious individuals without integrity and enables them to run amuck.

Re healthcare, Cook, I've shown you the international data on healthcare systems in other threads. The fact that you choose to ignore those data in order to persist in your delusions is not my problem, but yours.

"RC, there's a more basic point: You can't expand health care and make it more affordable."

Sure you can. It's been done in many other countries...not that we have to exactly follow any preexisting templates.

Robert is correct on this point. You can make it affordable by expanding the number of those covered under health care by reducing the amount of health care that is covered.

Simply instituting universal health care doesn't make it affordable, it still has to be paid for. In point of fact, most countries who have universal health care have some combination of state funded coverage along with private insurance. France and Germany being two prime examples.

What amazes me about people like Robert Cook is their desire for a powerful government that provides a generous welfare state and strict regulatory regime and then thump their chest with righteous indignation when the State suddenly starts throwing its weight around.

Government by its nature is oppressive, the level of oppression is moderated by the size of government.

Nazism, as socialism, as communism, as collectivism, as all philosophies which denigrate individual dignity are totalitarian in nature."

There are historical bodies of thought and writing having to do with the nature of the various "isms" above, except...Naziism.

As far as I know, Naziism isn't really a coherent philosophy of thought, or politics, or economics, so much as it is a grab-bag of resentments, paranoia, prejudices, and the will to power. In other words, it's as if the goobers down to the feedstore got lickered up and decided to impose their redneck ways...on everybody!

Communism and socialism are primarily theories of economics, and do not call for or require totalitarianism, but, as I understand it, assume collaboration and cooperation among those who would effect such systems in the world.

Obviously, they are utopian and, as with the writings of, say, Ayn Rand, ignore the reality and complexity of human nature and human societal life, so no "pure" examples of communism or socialism could ever work in societies that are larger than a hundred people or so, (if even that large).

Rather, one could only expect to see, at best, a mixed economy, incorporating elements of socialism with capitalism...all regulated by the people through their democratic government.

It is not totalitarianism that defines communism or socialism, but their means for organizing economic activity among humans.

Totalitarianism simply reflects human nature and the drive to dominate writ large. Any system of government organized by men will tend over time to tyranny, as the will to power derives from our essentially animal nature. You'll see this, for example, in communities of chimpanzees, our closest relatives (who do murder each other, by the way).

Capitalism tends toward tyranny no less than do any other forms of government or systems of organization of economic activity.

The overreaching strategy is to keep them from organizing anything big.

Knocking off their leaders regularly is part of that.

Let the legal system first deal with a war with a non-state enemy.

----------------Agree. And we were stupid to think the Nazi, Brit colonial, Israeli, and S African approach to consider non state enemy as civilian criminals and be treated as such in a civilian or military occupation judicial system was optimal.

RC, there's a more basic point: You can't expand health care and make it more affordable.

This would be true if you said, "you can't make health care more affordably by expanding it", but you can have greater proportion of the population receive health care than we currently have, with better health outcomes, for less money than we are currently spending as a population.

Angus - Robert is correct on this point. You can make it affordable by expanding the number of those covered under health care by reducing the amount of health care that is covered.

Simply instituting universal health care doesn't make it affordable, it still has to be paid for.

The evidence is that you can have universal health care, gain effeciencies the US system lacks - and by putting healthcare providers on salary and with profit margins vs. the US system - realize substantial savings and longer lifespans than in America.

Live longer than Americans, pay 40-60% less than Americans do collectively for healthcare. That is why no country is rushing to abandon their system for the US model.

"Government by its nature is oppressive, the level of oppression is moderated by the size of government."

No...the size of government is mandated by the size of the society it governs. A society our size cannot exist or function without a large government.

The level of oppression is a factor of the degree to which those in government are held to account under the law as are the governed, and also to the degree to which the citizenry are participating agents in their own governance.

When Republicans cheered Bush when he boasted--having no alternative, his deeds having been reported in press--that he had conducted a program of warrantless wiretapping--illegal, by definition--or when he admitted to having tortured terror suspects--also, by definition illegal--or when Democrats support or ignore Obama's mass murder by flying robots, tyranny is strengthened.

Even when our team is guilty of wrong, we must hold them to account, or we invite the inevitable. Even when their team is accused of wrong doing, we must be scrupulous in requiring proof before conviction, and punishment adjudicated by law rather than lynch mob, or we invite the inevitable.

Tyranny is let in the door by our own inattention, or prejudices, or fears, or lack of care.

Communism and socialism are primarily theories of economics, and do not call for or require totalitarianism

Such systems require coercion since humans don't naturally comply to such strictures, and therefore they require a political oligarchy, which historically have tended to be at least authoritarian if not outright totalitarian.

Here's the thing about the various socialist groups. There is a lot of intercine warfare going on between them. Doesn't make them not left wing groups. You might argue that of the left wing groups nazis are more to the right than say straight , but that doesn't make them Right Wing by any stretch.

The left-to-right political spectrum is not some kind of universal constant. It's just a one-dimensional abstraction, and the results are only as valid as the data points you choose to capture.

Totalitarian governments seek to subjugate the individual to the will of the State. It's not important whether the government calls itself Nazi, Fascist, Communist, Maoist, Juche, or whatever. It doesn't matter whether they justify their tyranny with crackpot genetic theories or crackpot economic theories or crackpot religious theories. What's important is what they create, not what they promise. What they do, and not their purported reasons and rationalizations for doing it.

If we could just push a button and blow off the heads of every Al Qaeda and Taliban leader instantly, should we push it? Would we?

Interesting question. In my opinion, the answer is "Yes".

Or ... in other words, "should we?" Not too sure about the morality of that stance.

I am open to argument that my idea is wrong.

My reasoning, admittedly prejudiced, is that both movements abuse their own people in the extreme, extorting approved conduct, on penalty of death....then seek to kill and maim others to boot.

I have never yet heard a local Arab Muslim neighbor say anything positive about Al Qaeda or the Taliban.

I will admit there is considerable sympathy among Lebanese Shiites for Hizballah, due to the combined social improvement efforts beyond the militaristic nature of the organization, from a Shiite point of view. When I raise the issue of the Iranian connection in conversation it seems to disquiet most of them.

I was a participant in the "For Life, Relief and Development" activities in the USA vis a vis pre-war Iraq....e.g., pre-2003. There was considerable opposition, among Iraqi Shiites, to NOT attacking Saddam versus those who wanted to refrain from USA attack on Saddam. I became involved due to a close friend who had done photo journalism in pre-war Iraq and asked me to join and listen and form an independent opinion. We did. Very interesting time...when occasionally the police had to come and break up the fist fights at meetings. He came away fearing that his involvement could land him in trouble with federal officials. I was still US Army and had already made my positions clear (I will follow orders, and did so, even those I disagreed with, but I will not surrender my free thoughts) ... and no gray suits have appeared at my door. Yet.

In their (pro-war Iraqis) view, future WMD had nothing to do with it...they had already suffered from Saddam's WMD. Sit and converse with a Kurd who has chemical burns visible and you will no longer be in doubt about WMD's in Iraq.

All the debate about WMD post facto amuses me, given I was in regular conversation with intelligence types who found, recovered and destroyed WMD's...personally.

And all this sort of talk is acedemic anyway. The real reason communism and heavily socialist systems collapse is because they fail to understand what motivates people. Such systems remove hope from the human experience. If there is no way to better oneself, ones station in life or the lives of loved ones, because you're prohibited a certain amount of income, a certain amount of healthcare, and restricted to a certain lifestyle or standard of living, you tend to only put the bare minimum amount of effort into your work in order to survive (basically the same as the economic argument that was leveled against slavery, because you're a slave to the state). As cheesy as it sounds, humans have to have hopes and dreams. Survival alone is not enough.

Hitler in 1927:"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions"

Sounds like a con man to me, luring in his marks...like a preacher condemning the sins of fornication and adultery who is caught consorting with prostitutes, or a congressman exorting against equal rights for homosexuals, whom he deems to be "abnormal" and "sinful," but who is found consorting with other men or even young boys.

In short, it sounds like what I have already described in my remarks above.

"No...the size of government is mandated by the size of the society it governs. A society our size cannot exist or function without a large government."

Your error lies in your assumption of "a large government", as in a single government of great size.

A single large government, as the colonists knew from personal experience, inevitably loses the ability to control itself or to be controlled by its citizens. Which is why the governmental structure of the United States, under the Constitution, was carefully designed to be an aggregate of smaller governments existing as co-equals with a federal government empowered only to do certain specific things. Sadly we've allowed the federal government to usurp powers that never belonged to any US government, and they'll continue to abuse those powers until they're put back where they belong.

Joseph Goebbels (in 1931):"Der Idee der NSDAP entsprechend sind wir die deutsche Linke… Nichts ist uns verhasster als der rechtsstehende nationale Besitzbürgerblock.“ [The idea of the Nazi Party is expressly that we are the German Left .. Nothing is more hated by us than the national property-owner's bloc

'We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions'

"What does that sound like? Conservatism?"

Looked at another way, do you purport that conservatism supports "...the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance...?"

(At least as presently manifested in America, it does, in fact support the above, but I'm sure you and the other pro-cons here would disagree.)

"Conservatism" is not an ideology so much as it is a state of mind, a way of thinking about and viewing the world, and one can as much be a conservative communist as a conservative capitalist.

In fact, in my lifetime there was such a thing as liberal republicans and conservative democrats.

(Well, almost all the Dems are conservative today; let's say there were conservative and liberal wings of the Democratic Party and also of the Republican Party. That's largely gone away, as a result of the efforts of Newt Gingrich and Grover Norquist.)

Robert Cook:Sounds like a con man to me, luring in his marks...like a preacher condemning the sins of fornication and adultery who is caught consorting with prostitutes, or a congressman exorting against equal rights for homosexuals, whom he deems to be "abnormal" and "sinful," but who is found consorting with other men or even young boys.

Just because you're a hypocrite or a liar doesn't make you not a leftist.

jr565: I salute your efforts but the idea that the Nazis were conservatives is thoroughly entrenched in the mind of the left--as assuredly as the notion that the KKK were Republicans, or the silly sullivanistic/ritmo notion that Romney rode the "New Confederacy" to defeat.

Robert Cook wrote:Looked at another way, do you purport that conservatism supports "...the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance...?"

(At least as presently manifested in America, it does, in fact support the above, but I'm sure you and the other pro-cons here would disagree.)

This is a leftist argument. A conservative wouldn't make it. Thus you can't call it Right Wing. Do I agree with the Left and Hitlers argument? No, which again is why I'm not a leftist.

But c'mon .THat's something you might hear occupy wall street say TODAY. how on earth would we characterize someone saying that as "RIGHT WING".The only thing RIGHT WIng about HItler is that the LEFT WING thinks the right wing in this country are war mongers and racist and the Nazis were war mongers and racist. Ergo, they are Nazis and Nazis are Right Wing.Completely ahistorical and frankly offensive. But I can see why the left does it.

To quote Cook exactly using your own words: Capitalism tends toward tyranny no less than do any other forms of government or systems of organization of economic activity.

There is no reason for the phrase "any other forms of government" than to equate capitalism with government. Capitalism cannot tend toward tyranny, but crony capitalism practiced by a government or corporatism, in other words, certainly can. If that's what you are saying, then we may be in agreement on something here. I would put Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac in that category, certainly.

I think generally the leftist argument with regards to the Nazi's being right wing is that Conservatism can mean cultural conservatism, which in it's most extreme forms can mutate patriotism into nationalism, love of ones' country into fear or hatred of others, basic xenophobia, racism ect. Of course conservatives don't think of themselves in those terms. Modern conservatives have been unfairly burdened with those associations. And at any rate they have absolutely nothing to do with fiscal conservatism and small government.

Capitalism is simply free markets, its what people do naturally. The Yak farmer selling his wool, the rug maker buying the wool and producing rugs, the rug merchant buying and trading rugs. The beauty of free market capitalism is that it is the only win-win system that works regardless of cultural or language limitations among participants. The Yak farmer is pleased with the price he obtains for his wool or he does not sell it. The rug maker buys at a fair price and after conversion to wares, sells at what he considers a good price.

None of this requires a government, but it is all helped a great deal by clear rules of law, such as punishing thieves and frauds. Another way of looking at it is with you as the customer. When you go to Perillo's Chicago Beef and buy a lunch you are happy enough to fork over $7. The vendor is happy to take your $7 with which he pays his employees and vendors. Win-win! Any monkeying with this system -- excessive regulation, price controls, government sponsored "competitors" -- tends to degrade the outcomes.

We get to the GMAT LSAT type logic exam portions again, a jumbled story studded with unhappy facts that must be sorted from above and not from within, and withdraw from that chaotic writhing mass the most salient points to reorder and with the unimportant elements duly placed.

The reordering must include things not stated in the story like the significance of free speech, consistent application of law, role of fourth estate, influence of unelected officials, appearances, etc.

Then a different story develops from the one told with the characters redefined so that those on low stay low but become more fully infused with humanity and even certain cloaked saintly traits as one might find in a panhandler, and those on high are brought down lower than that because through it all their behavior is seen lower than panhandlers and yet they will retain their lofty positions and advance, such is real injustice in the world which make compelling complications.

The more interesting character is Nakoula Basseley Nakoula the one whose sequence of accidents lead to his neck being stomped on by the other less interesting characters including Barack Hussein Obama II whose sequence of accidents carried him along uplifted to the highest position of all. The characterizations are reversed in the new telling. Now they're all low. The highest are lowest of all in Reversalseethroughallthetransparencyland much the same way as supreme court is seen as the catchbasin for the most profoundly obtuse.

The reordered story begins with the broadly publicized photograph of five brown shirted officers making an important and unusual midnight arrest, proof that precise action was taken, and we're left wondering if we know of any such photographic evidence of the singular foreign affairs achievement that could carry a president through fifty-one separate concurrent elections across the land, the sea-burial of Osama bin Laden, and the answer is no there is not such a broadly publicized photograph as that. The reordered story devolves from that scene onto scenes of officials observing outposts burning under attack for aching hours threatening the lives of some twent-five or so operators, it's hard to know in the confusion and secrecy their precise number, nevertheless they're all abandoned to die. One character becomes more sympathetic through the reordering with development, a few others do too by disobeying direct orders, and all the others do much worse.

The NYT reported the other day. Its sources say they wanted "a new president [to] inherit clear standards and procedures."

if they are coming up with procedures that means there are John Yoo style memos asking when it's ok to blow up people. Including probably women and children. So lets see those memos snc then we can get into debates about how Obama is ok with murdering little kids. What particular procedure would allow that, and when would it be going too far. What WOULDN'T be permissible.Remember, the left is the side that said water boarding is torture and even having a debate about what should or should not be permissable was advocating TORTURE.So lets see the memos NYT so we can have that debate.Are you ready Inga, and Ritmo?

Lars Polenta wrote:I like Obama's drone policy. He loosened up the rules that Bush was following. In this area he has been ruthless, remorseless, and relentless.

We are at war. Moderation in war is madness.

But yet waterboarding 3 people makes us lose our souls! If we blew up those people in a drone strike, no problemo. Just imagine if KSM got hit by a bomb but didn't die right away but had his legs blown off and was dying in a pool of blood for hours. Versus, having him have water poured over his head by people monitoring every pour so that we are sure he's not dying and not actually facing harm. leaving aside the efficacy of eahc policy, it's kind of bizarre that the waterboarding would be the one that gets people more outraged.

As for whether I personally am ok with drone strikes, (and waterboarding) the answer is YES. What I can't abide though is the faux outrage and hypocricy of the left when Bush did it and the sudden acquiescence when Obama continues it (ok not the waterboarding though since he's ok with renditions, he's probalby sending people to places where much worse is done)and actually expands on it. It's like we never had the conversation to begin with and never went through 8 years of BDS.

Lets just put it on the table. The former Speak Truth to Power crowd are ok with kill lists and drone strikes and expanding wars and occupations and not closing Gitmo, and not trying KSM in courts, and ok with tribunals, and not going to congress before engaging in warish operations. Not in My Name became "Free Birth control.

My interest in ideologies does not include their theoretical or philosophical value. I am not at all interested in the semantic games people are fond of playing. I am concerned with the behaviors they engender and their correlation with positive progress.

My standards for positive progress are preservation of individual dignity and evolutionary fitness. My standards for regressive or negative progress is violation of these two criteria. I judge the merit of each religion or philosophy by the principles it promotes and the behaviors which it engenders. The rest is a mental exercise better left to academics and similarly inclined individuals.

As for capitalism, where individuals retain the maximal product of their labor, it does not tend to tyranny unless coupled with monopolies or monopolistic behaviors, which are typically processed through voluntary or involuntary grants of authority to individuals and cooperatives (e.g. government). Its progress to a totalitarian regime follows from the marginalization or evisceration of competing interests through involuntary redistribution schemes and a selective restriction of liberty.

This is the reason why communism, socialism, fascism, and similar schemes fail by design. They exploit authority and certain individual attributes to consolidate wealth and power in a select group of individuals. This is typically accomplished through either coercion or corruption of a society motivated by dreams of instant gratification. Promises of equality are deceptive and are offered to wrest support. Their message is especially attractive to opportunists, the vulnerable, and individuals who prefer to exist in a lower energy state while enjoying the benefits afforded by a high energy state.

As for democracy, it is not the goal. It cannot be. A state which is capable of realizing positive progress is not directed by the will and whims of a majority or its minority representatives. It is also not directed by an alliance of minority interests which can simulate a majority rule.

A majority of scholars identify Nazism in practice as a form of far-right politics.[21] Far right themes in Nazism include the argument that superior people have a right to dominate over others and purge society of supposed inferior elements.

1) Yes, a majority of "scholars" living in a leftwing echotank have been trying to label the Nazis leftwing for the last 60 years. That doesn't make it true.

2) the argument that superior people have a right to dominate over others and purge society of supposed inferior elements

This could have been taken directly from the party platform of the 20th century Progressive Party and movement, yet Wikipedia labels it rightwing.

I frankly don't care about the endless back-and-forth argument over whether Naziism and fascism are “socialist” or not. All these are indubitably statist and ruthless, and communists are basically just as bad as Nazis.

No.If it is OK for the Obamma admministration, it is OK for any administration anywhere, any time.

F.ex., Mexico is "at war" with the drug cartels. It is then OK for the Mexican government to hit "drug lords" from unmanned drones. Some such "drug lords" may be crossing into the United States. The drones follow too, right?Some such "drug lords" may accidentally turn out to also be connected to the opposition political party. Oopsy?

"As far as I know, Naziism isn't really a coherent philosophy of thought, or politics, or economics, so much as it is a grab-bag of resentments, paranoia, prejudices, and the will to power. In other words, it's as if the goobers down to the feedstore got lickered up and decided to impose their redneck ways...on everybody!

Communism and socialism are primarily theories of economics, and do not call for or require totalitarianism, but, as I understand it, assume collaboration and cooperation among those who would effect such systems in the world."

This is so incredibly naive... Socialism and communism requires the government to fully control the economy. And if you don't like it - "up against the wall!" as Lenin would say.

I can see that Robert Cook mistakes communism and socialism for some kinf of a hippy country-side.

P.S. Hitler was undeniably socialist. He did not believe in individual liberty in any sphere, which makes him so much like Stalin and Mao and Lenin.

P.P.S. Trotsky and Stalin called each other "fascist". Of course, both of them were communists.

"I think generally the leftist argument with regards to the Nazi's being right wing is that Conservatism can mean cultural conservatism, which in it's most extreme forms can mutate patriotism into nationalism, love of ones' country into fear or hatred of others, basic xenophobia, racism ect."

Stalin's USSR, Mao's China, and Pol Pot's Cambodia. All three had nationalism, xenophobia and racism.

"No...the size of government is mandated by the size of the society it governs. A society our size cannot exist or function without a large government. "

Interesting. China under Mao - huge totalitarian government. Poor. Later, the "society" grew considerably, and now the government is much less intrusive and smaller economically. What's that stuff about "mandate" did you talk about?

Speaking of mandates, Germany had government monopolies running the economy since 19th century. Great Britain started moving into monopolies nearly 1/2 century later - and it all ended in tears.

P.S. Robert, you really need to start reading books which are somewhat more relevant to the development of political economy thinking of the last 100 years.

"It's very convenient--if childishly self-serving...and unconvincing--how the right has carefully attempted a redefinition of terms and revision of history to insure an interpretation of the world such that all that is bad in the world derives from the left and from leftist policies, and such that, by definition, the right can never be thuggish, violent, or tyrannical, or their policies be wrong-headed or lead to bad results."

Given that people talked about the obvious parallels between Naziism and Communism back in 1930ies, and the anti-soviet dissidents noted same in the 50ies and 60ies, your claim that the right are trying to redefine something stem from your ignorant of political thought of the last 80 plus years.

BTW, when good FDR tried to figure out the way out of Great Depression, his folks decided to look at 4 economic models that seemed to be similar to them and apparently very successful: Nazi Germany, Stalin's USSR, Japan and fascist Italy. Yap. Apparently, the good old American leftists saw these four countries as the model to replicate.

Down the memory hole. The Obama of 2008:When you suspend habeas corpus — which has been a principle dating before even our country, it’s the foundation of Anglo-American law — which says very simply if the government grabs you then you have the right to at least ask “Why was I grabbed?” and say, “Hey, you’ve got the wrong person.” The reason you have that safeguard is because we don’t always catch the right person. We may think this is Mohammed the terrorist, it might be Mohammed the cab driver. You might think it’s Barack the bomb thrower, but it’s Barack the guy running for president. So the reason that you have this principle is not to be soft on terrorism, it’s because that’s who we are. That’s what we’re protecting. Don’t mock the Constitution. Don’t make fun of it. Don’t suggest that it’s un-American to abide by what the Founding Fathers set up. It’s worked pretty well for over two-hundred years.

From that to, coming up with rules to blow people up because prior to the discussion they had apparently just been blowing people up (including Americans)I recall that the libs really cheered when Barack brought up this point. They really BELIEVED in that habeus corpus stuff. and that Bush was so evil because he didn't. But, that was really just talk to get elected, on the part of Obama. And that was just cheering by libs to get Obama elected. Other than a few standouts of integrity,most dems never gave it a second thought that the Obama of 2008 was not the Obama post 2008. It all goes down the memory hole.Every time.

Hyphenated American wrote;BTW, when good FDR tried to figure out the way out of Great Depression, his folks decided to look at 4 economic models that seemed to be similar to them and apparently very successful: Nazi Germany, Stalin's USSR, Japan and fascist Italy. Yap. Apparently, the good old American leftists saw these four countries as the model to replicate.

oh, yeah the fascists liked FDR and in turn FDR liked the fascists.The Nazi Party newspaper, the Völkischer Beobachter, "stressed 'Roosevelt's adoption of National Socialist strains of thought in his economic and social policies,' praising the president's style of leadership as being compatible with Hitler's own dictatorial Führerprinzip"

Hitler himself told Ambassador Dodd : he was 'in accord with the President in the view that the virtue of duty, readiness for sacrifice, and discipline should dominate the entire people. These moral demands which the President places before every individual citizen of the United States are also the quintessence of the German state philosophy, which finds its expression in the slogan "The Public Weal Transcends the Interest of the Individual"'Mussolini wrote a review of FDR's Looking Forward and said it was:"reminiscent of fascism … the principle that the state no longer leaves the economy to its own devices"

Libs should look at that bolded part, and recognize that THAT is fascism and what they are advocating then is fascism. Libs are the fascists.

And FDR similarly gushed about Mussolini's running of the state One, of his leading advisors Rexford Tugwell, gushed:It's the cleanest … most efficiently operating piece of social machinery I've ever seen. It makes me envious"

Indeed. I don't think the left really nkows what fascism is, when they scream it at Republicans.